lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:03:49 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Qian Cai <cai@...hat.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: [PATCH 5.9 11/14] powerpc/smp: Call rcu_cpu_starting() earlier

From: Qian Cai <cai@...hat.com>

commit 99f070b62322a4b8c1252952735806d09eb44b68 upstream.

The call to rcu_cpu_starting() in start_secondary() is not early
enough in the CPU-hotplug onlining process, which results in lockdep
splats as follows (with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST=y):

  WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
  -----------------------------
  kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3497 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!

  other info that might help us debug this:

  RCU used illegally from offline CPU!
  rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
  no locks held by swapper/1/0.

  Call Trace:
  dump_stack+0xec/0x144 (unreliable)
  lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x128/0x14c
  __lock_acquire+0x1060/0x1c60
  lock_acquire+0x140/0x5f0
  _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x64/0xb0
  clockevents_register_device+0x74/0x270
  register_decrementer_clockevent+0x94/0x110
  start_secondary+0x134/0x800
  start_secondary_prolog+0x10/0x14

This is avoided by adding a call to rcu_cpu_starting() near the
beginning of the start_secondary() function. Note that the
raw_smp_processor_id() is required in order to avoid calling into
lockdep before RCU has declared the CPU to be watched for readers.

It's safe to call rcu_cpu_starting() in the arch code as well as later
in generic code, as explained by Paul:

  It uses a per-CPU variable so that RCU pays attention only to the
  first call to rcu_cpu_starting() if there is more than one of them.
  This is even intentional, due to there being a generic
  arch-independent call to rcu_cpu_starting() in
  notify_cpu_starting().

  So multiple calls to rcu_cpu_starting() are fine by design.

Fixes: 4d004099a668 ("lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion")
Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@...hat.com>
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
[mpe: Add Fixes tag, reword slightly & expand change log]
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201028182334.13466-1-cai@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
@@ -1251,7 +1251,7 @@ static bool shared_caches;
 /* Activate a secondary processor. */
 void start_secondary(void *unused)
 {
-	unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
+	unsigned int cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
 	struct cpumask *(*sibling_mask)(int) = cpu_sibling_mask;
 
 	mmgrab(&init_mm);


Powered by blists - more mailing lists